• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Migration of South to North

Buzz62

Buzz62

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2017
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
1,069
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hi all,

I've begun this thread here because to me, it seemed like the appropriate place, and...I'm hoping to avoid input from the loud and wildly partisan. I'm really quite curious about how level-headed people feel and think about the current mass migrations from the southern hemisphere to the northern in both Europe and the Americas. We can, I hope, start with this;

Historically...Europe has either been fighting with the Arab and African nations, or have been a serious imposition on the people of those 2 regions.
And historically...Europe and North America have been doing about the same to South America.
In both cases, a good argument can be made that the northern peoples helped create the circumstances that exist in the southern lands, but is this idea completely correct? Is that all there is to it? I'm not sure.

North America was, for the most part and originally, colonized primarily by the English and the French.
South America was, for the most part and originally, colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese.
Both had, shall we say, slightly different reasons and methods for this colonization.
The northern nations produced huge advances in technology and prospered well. They enjoy a solid, yet imperfect, democracy and a strong sense of law and order. While there has always been a criminal element, it too has been conducted, for the most part, with a sort of begrudging respect for democracy and the law. For the most part...
The southern nations produced exploding populations and leaderships that are either ineffective or just openly corupt to the core. Oh and they produced allot of illegal drugs. They do not really display much in the way of respect for democracy or the law.
QUESTION: Do the cultures of the Spanish and the Portuguese, have a real influence of the cultures and societies built in South America? And if they do, which I suspect, then that poses a rather obvious question which is;
Why would the northern nations even want these people in their societies?
A very crass and tough question but, one that I think needs asking right about now.

Europe is the seed of the caucasian race of humans. They brought the world the Renaissance, modern science and technology, exploration and colonization. They too have an inherent respect for democracy, and law and order.
The Arab nations and African nations produced dictators and poverty. Desperate poverty. They also produced what appears to be absolute chaos.
QUESTION: To what degree can European influence be blamed for the state of affairs in Arabia and Africa?
Why should Europe allow hundreds of thousands of people from these regions, to migrate freely to Europe?

In both cases, are the northern populations "wise" to allow and/or invite this migration and how will it alter the societies, if these southern peoples are allowed to do so? Will it be "better"? Will there be an effect similar to that of what we now see in their homelands?

A final and parting thought on Africa...in particular. The northern peoples are currently in the process of trying to deny the African (and others) peoples a clear path to industrialization. The excuse used is climate change. Is this wise...at all???
 
Last edited:
Buzz62 said:
Hi all,

I've begun this thread here because to me, it seemed like the appropriate place, and...I'm hoping to avoid input from the loud and wildly partisan. I'm really quite curious about how level-headed people feel and think about the current mass migrations from the southern hemisphere to the northern in both Europe and the Americas. We can, I hope, start with this;

Historically...Europe has either been fighting with the Arab and African nations, or have been a serious imposition on the people of those 2 regions.
And historically...Europe and North America have been doing about the same to South America.
In both cases, a good argument can be made that the northern peoples helped create the circumstances that exist in the southern lands, but is this idea completely correct? Is that all there is to it? I'm not sure.

North America was, for the most part and originally, colonized primarily by the English and the French.
South America was, for the most part and originally, colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese.
Both had, shall we say, slightly different reasons and methods for this colonization.
The northern nations produced huge advances in technology and prospered well. They enjoy a solid, yet imperfect, democracy and a strong sense of law and order. While there has always been a criminal element, it too has been conducted, for the most part, with a sort of begrudging respect for democracy and the law. For the most part...
The southern nations produced exploding populations and leaderships that are either ineffective or just openly corupt to the core. Oh and they produced allot of illegal drugs. They do not really display much in the way of respect for democracy or the law.
QUESTION: Do the cultures of the Spanish and the Portuguese, have a real influence of the cultures and societies built in South America? And if they do, which I suspect, then that poses a rather obvious question which is;
Why would the northern nations even want these people in their societies?
A very crass and tough question but, one that I think needs asking right about now.

Europe is the seed of the caucasian race of humans. They brought the world the Renaissance, modern science and technology, exploration and colonization. They too have an inherent respect for democracy, and law and order.
The Arab nations and African nations produced dictators and poverty. Desperate poverty. They also produced what appears to be absolute chaos.
QUESTION: To what degree can European influence be blamed for the state of affairs in Arabia and Africa?
Why should Europe allow hundreds of thousands of people from these regions, to migrate freely to Europe?

In both cases, are the northern populations "wise" to allow and/or invite this migration and how will it alter the societies, if these southern peoples are allowed to do so? Will it be "better"? Will there be an effect similar to that of what we now see in their homelands?

A final and parting thought on Africa...in particular. The northern peoples are currently in the process of trying to deny the African (and others) peoples a clear path to industrialization. The excuse used is climate change. Is this wise...at all???
Click to expand...

This post is severely geographically flawed. I suggest that you look at a map (or globe) and tell us how Arbia (or much of Africa, for that matter) is below the equator (i.e. is in the southern hemisphere). EDIT: you seem to have (accidentally?) moved the equator to about 30 degrees north latitiude.

https://www.google.com/search?q=wor...F-8&hl=en&client=safari#imgrc=ts1XcLw-vJrgGM:
 
Last edited:
Translation: Arabs, Hispanics, and Africans are all lazy and criminals so we should not allow them to immigrate or allow refugees.
 
If the North is so good...how come people never move from Georgia to Michigan to retire ?
 
Carjosse said:
Translation: Arabs, Hispanics, and Africans are all lazy and criminals so we should not allow them to immigrate or allow refugees.
Click to expand...

No I'm not trying to say that at all. Although I guess that's how it might read to some.
In fact, I don't think laziness is exclusive to any race of humans. It's pretty 'universal' that way.
Criminality is too. I'm more wondering if the state of affairs in the southern regions can be attributed to the culture?
And know that as far as any practical experience, the closest I have ever been to it would be a vacation in south Spain once...23 years ago...where I learned that garbage cans are as much a subtle hint, as traffic lights are in Montreal.

I'm wondering how it all became such a ****show, and do the populations of the north really want such influence? Would it be wise?

Also understand that I'm really trying to be open to having my personal views swayed by real logic. Perhaps, given the sheer numbers on the planet, this migration and more, are inevitable? If so, can that be done in a way that most people can get with the program? Or is this always gonna result in a dog-fight between the right and the left?
 
Rich2018 said:
If the North is so good...how come people never move from Georgia to Michigan to retire ?
Click to expand...

ROFL! Good point...

Speaking of that though, I'm not sure I could be comfortable in Georgia.
I'm hardly comfortable in Toronto. Much too humid for me. I find the best summer day for me is about 25 degrees C. (about 77 F.) You can hang out at the beach and swim, and you can golf without sweating bullets after the 3rd hole.
 
Africa is the seed of the Caucasian race!
 
Rich2018 said:
If the North is so good...how come people never move from Georgia to Michigan to retire ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because they think that GA is in the southern hemisphere and that MI is full of yankees which are evil, strange folks.
 
Anarchon said:
I don't think you read, well...anything the OP wrote.
Click to expand...



It's what we say in the Beautiful South.



We also say "Red sky at night, means Atlanta's on fire"


Cause the damned Yankees burned our town.
 
can2man said:
Africa is the seed of the Caucasian race!
Click to expand...

OK at some point one either has to concede that we are all one formal "race". Humans.
But we use the term, perhaps by bending the formal meaning, to signify the different skin tones, and physical attributes.
But good catch...
Is it OK with you if we continue to use the term "race" as I've used it here?
 
Buzz62 said:
OK at some point one either has to concede that we are all one formal "race". Humans.
But we use the term, perhaps by bending the formal meaning, to signify the different skin tones, and physical attributes.
But good catch...
Is it OK with you if we continue to use the term "race" as I've used it here?
Click to expand...

You are correct - race signifies physical attributes. That’s how it is used.
I guess my comment was my way of saying: I really don’t think that many modern humans are really that different
from each other. The differences that was see in wealth distribution, technology, poverty have more to do
with circumstances, time and chance than it does with race.
That’s all. Just my opinion.
 
Buzz62 said:
Hi all,

I've begun this thread here because to me, it seemed like the appropriate place, and...I'm hoping to avoid input from the loud and wildly partisan. I'm really quite curious about how level-headed people feel and think about the current mass migrations from the southern hemisphere to the northern in both Europe and the Americas. We can, I hope, start with this;

Historically...Europe has either been fighting with the Arab and African nations, or have been a serious imposition on the people of those 2 regions.
And historically...Europe and North America have been doing about the same to South America.
In both cases, a good argument can be made that the northern peoples helped create the circumstances that exist in the southern lands, but is this idea completely correct? Is that all there is to it? I'm not sure.

North America was, for the most part and originally, colonized primarily by the English and the French.
South America was, for the most part and originally, colonized by the Spanish and the Portuguese.
Both had, shall we say, slightly different reasons and methods for this colonization.
The northern nations produced huge advances in technology and prospered well. They enjoy a solid, yet imperfect, democracy and a strong sense of law and order. While there has always been a criminal element, it too has been conducted, for the most part, with a sort of begrudging respect for democracy and the law. For the most part...
The southern nations produced exploding populations and leaderships that are either ineffective or just openly corupt to the core. Oh and they produced allot of illegal drugs. They do not really display much in the way of respect for democracy or the law.
QUESTION: Do the cultures of the Spanish and the Portuguese, have a real influence of the cultures and societies built in South America? And if they do, which I suspect, then that poses a rather obvious question which is;
Why would the northern nations even want these people in their societies?
A very crass and tough question but, one that I think needs asking right about now.

Europe is the seed of the caucasian race of humans. They brought the world the Renaissance, modern science and technology, exploration and colonization. They too have an inherent respect for democracy, and law and order.
The Arab nations and African nations produced dictators and poverty. Desperate poverty. They also produced what appears to be absolute chaos.
QUESTION: To what degree can European influence be blamed for the state of affairs in Arabia and Africa?
Why should Europe allow hundreds of thousands of people from these regions, to migrate freely to Europe?

In both cases, are the northern populations "wise" to allow and/or invite this migration and how will it alter the societies, if these southern peoples are allowed to do so? Will it be "better"? Will there be an effect similar to that of what we now see in their homelands?

A final and parting thought on Africa...in particular. The northern peoples are currently in the process of trying to deny the African (and others) peoples a clear path to industrialization. The excuse used is climate change. Is this wise...at all???
Click to expand...

:lamo

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the literally dozens of dicatators which have ruled various European countries over the years.

Where was this mythical "inherent European respect for democracy and law and order" during the Holocaust again?

Your entire post is nothing more than utter garbage.
 
Rich2018 said:
Damned Yanks burned our town.
Click to expand...

No sane general was going to leave a major rail hub like Atlanta intact to threaten his rear.

Maybe next time don't go to war to try and preserve slavery.
 
can2man said:
You are correct - race signifies physical attributes. That’s how it is used.
I guess my comment was my way of saying: I really don’t think that many modern humans are really that different
from each other. The differences that was see in wealth distribution, technology, poverty have more to do
with circumstances, time and chance than it does with race.
That’s all. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

And that's a valid opinion. A good point.
But is circumstances of the time dictate the development of a society, are you saying that indeed North America and Europe had a circumstantial advantage?
 
Tigerace117 said:
:lamo

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the literally dozens of dicatators which have ruled various European countries over the years.

Where was this mythical "inherent European respect for democracy and law and order" during the Holocaust again?

Your entire post is nothing more than utter garbage.
Click to expand...

Gee Tiger, I was really hoping you would have had the class to not turn this thread in particular, into a mud-slinging event.
I wanna explore and question my own beliefs in an effort to try and understand more of the big picture.
Please don't try to pollute this with your partisan attacks.
 
Buzz62 said:
Gee Tiger, I was really hoping you would have had the class to not turn this thread in particular, into a mud-slinging event.
I wanna explore and question my own beliefs in an effort to try and understand more of the big picture.
Please don't try to pollute this with your partisan attacks.
Click to expand...

You shrieked about how many dictators there have been in Africa and Asia. I pointed out that there have been plenty of European dictators, so your argument is inherently flawed.

You also made a fairy tale claim about how Europeans had "inherent respect for democracy and law and order" which is laughably historically inaccurate.

Your beliefs, as usual, are deeply ignorant and filled with gaping holes.

If you wanted an echo chamber of people praising your fantasies you should have gone to Stormfront.
 
Carjosse said:
Translation: Arabs, Hispanics, and Africans are all lazy and criminals so we should not allow them to immigrate or allow refugees.
Click to expand...

Its okay to take or pay for their natural resources though.
 
Buzz62 said:
Historically...Europe has either been fighting with the Arab and African nations, or have been a serious imposition on the people of those 2 regions.
And historically...Europe and North America have been doing about the same to South America. In both cases, a good argument can be made that the northern peoples helped create the circumstances that exist in the southern lands, but is this idea completely correct? Is that all there is to it? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

I would recommend Guns, Germs, and Steel.
It is not a complete answer, but it may be the beginning of one.
 
Buzz62 said:
No I'm not trying to say that at all. Although I guess that's how it might read to some.
In fact, I don't think laziness is exclusive to any race of humans. It's pretty 'universal' that way.
Criminality is too. I'm more wondering if the state of affairs in the southern regions can be attributed to the culture?
And know that as far as any practical experience, the closest I have ever been to it would be a vacation in south Spain once...23 years ago...where I learned that garbage cans are as much a subtle hint, as traffic lights are in Montreal.

I'm wondering how it all became such a ****show, and do the populations of the north really want such influence? Would it be wise?

Also understand that I'm really trying to be open to having my personal views swayed by real logic. Perhaps, given the sheer numbers on the planet, this migration and more, are inevitable? If so, can that be done in a way that most people can get with the program? Or is this always gonna result in a dog-fight between the right and the left?
Click to expand...

I think a few factors remain unmentioned here. By and large, the Spanish and Portuguese came to extract things from the New World. Brits and to a certain extent the French came to settle. Spanish intermarried, Brits did not. Spanish encountered relatively “advanced” civilizations in, for example Mexico and Peru, while Brits, with some exceptions did not. The patterns of trade between the north and south have been raw materials with relatively low prices being exchanged for manufactured items at higher prices, a losing process for poor countries. One classic example of some years past was coffee beans exported from the south, with instant coffee made from those beans imported from Europe.

When I first encountered third world poverty in the 60s and 70s I said to friends that someday people would just get up and start walking north, payback for Europe colonization and US overthrow of Latin American governments we didn’t like. That seems to be starting, sort of repaying the favor.

Sadly, such migration is an opportunity for demagogues to take advantage and demonize the migrants.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You shrieked about how many dictators there have been in Africa and Asia. I pointed out that there have been plenty of European dictators, so your argument is inherently flawed.

You also made a fairy tale claim about how Europeans had "inherent respect for democracy and law and order" which is laughably historically inaccurate.

Your beliefs, as usual, are deeply ignorant and filled with gaping holes.

If you wanted an echo chamber of people praising your fantasies you should have gone to Stormfront.
Click to expand...

Did you really just come here to troll me?
If you have something intelligent to offer, go ahead. But please try to be a little less of a screaming partisan...at least in this thread.
 
Nickyjo said:
I think a few factors remain unmentioned here. By and large, the Spanish and Portuguese came to extract things from the New World. Brits and to a certain extent the French came to settle. Spanish intermarried, Brits did not. Spanish encountered relatively “advanced” civilizations in, for example Mexico and Peru, while Brits, with some exceptions did not. The patterns of trade between the north and south have been raw materials with relatively low prices being exchanged for manufactured items at higher prices, a losing process for poor countries. One classic example of some years past was coffee beans exported from the south, with instant coffee made from those beans imported from Europe.

When I first encountered third world poverty in the 60s and 70s I said to friends that someday people would just get up and start walking north, payback for Europe colonization and US overthrow of Latin American governments we didn’t like. That seems to be starting, sort of repaying the favor.

Sadly, such migration is an opportunity for demagogues to take advantage and demonize the migrants.
Click to expand...

I'm mulling this over in my head and keep thinking, the English and French came to colonize, and the Spanish and Portuguese came to plunder. That, in itself, I think speaks volumes about the differences in the cultures. Such would have given the new NA colonists a distinct advantage with respect to infrastructure and capabilities. Thus might it be fair to say that the reason for initial exploration to the new world, produced an initial unequality between north and south, which the southern nations were never really able to dig out of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom